I just realized something. Even if it isn't in print anymore, isn't it bad to have a card type share a name with a card? Specifically Adventurer in this case.

Also, Quest is already in use.

Quest and Gear were oversights. I'll rename them to Adventure and Equipment (though they're a bit less pretty on the card due to their length).

Adventurer is just too good a name for me to pass on though, unless someone can think of something else! In practice it shouldn't cause any issues, since most of the time it's obvious whether you're referring to a Card or Card Type. Also I'm pretty sure nobody ever buys Adventurers! Still, I know it will annoy some people :-(

Well first off great mockups! I find myself coming back to this thread just to admire the style and artwork. But thankfully this also seems to have a lot else going for it. I won't cover everything here, but I figure starting with the Adventurers and Quest seems like a good place.

Cleric: The on-play seems rather weak and unnecessarily restrictive. It's a terminal, stop card with no other functionality besides trashing Curses. Beyond that, when played you could end up skipping a lot of good cards. I'm sure this would work fine as a name a card to trash type deal. In addition I think the other revealed cards could go back on top in any order.

It may be a bit weak, though it does a tiny bit more than trash Curses: it also cycles and can trigger on-discard reactions. I'm worried about making it too good at trashing curses, which could mean people don't buy cursers as a result, but I might try buffing it when I try it out.

Quote

Since we're all brainstorming, here are some random ideas:(1) An Adventurer that can steal other Adventurers if they are still on an Adventurer mat. (2) Adventurers that put themselves back on the Adventurer mat and thus need to satisfy the on-call each time.(3) Adventurers that start in a common Adventurers mat and thus players can gain multiples of them if fast enough.

Nice suggestions.

Quote

Quests: Really interesting, but I think these are way too swingy. You could specifically hinder yourself by building a deck to specifically satisfy say gaining 4 cards in one turn for Dragon Heist only to be beaten to it by one turn. Now your deck is shot and your opponent has +5 Coffers. I think the game is effectively over at that point. This will not always be the case, but I think this likely doesn't work most games.

I like the idea of being rewarded for being first, but how about some runner up prizes? You could have something like:

Tokens being something like the Project cubes. Players could only put one token/cube on a Quest. This doesn't work for things like Ruined Crypt, but I'm sure there are creative ways to scale that.

Great idea! I briefly toyed with the idea of different (possibly private) Quests for different people, almost like Ticket To Ride, but decided that would be equally swingy. Even just having a runner-up prize would probably be enough. One practical issue though might be having enough token cubes to go round (though the Gears already requires 4 per player).

Quote

Ultimately I think this is looking really good. I may be able to help with playtesting. I assume your thinking about using Tabletop simulator?

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, there is a D&D deckbuilder called Dragonfire that is pretty fun. It's not heavy on the deckbuilding, but has certain elements of it.

I was actually planning a combination of real-life testing of a few cards using blanks/spares, combined with using my homespun (but undistributable, for copyright reasons) text-based Dominion implementation. I hadn't actually heard of Tabletop Simulator before! Checking out YouTube videos now. Also thanks for the Dragonfire recommendation!

Dark Priest, like Tunnel, relies on another discarder. Fortunately Cleric is one such discarder (and a particularly effective one in the absence of curses).

Cleric doesn't discard from play, and Dark Priest specifically says that it has to be discarded from play, which is impossible as no official card and none of your cards discard from play. I assume Dark Priest's extra effect is supposed to trigger just when it's discarded in general. Either way, it should be a Reaction card; look at Faithful Hound and the aforementioned Tunnel.

Two good points. I'll fix it. Update: fixed.

Regarding Wizard, I forgot to note in my previous response that it can't upgrade an Estate due to the type restriction (unless you've bought inheritance I guess). It can still reveal a Silver for a Gold though.

Glad you liked the Gear concept. Somehow I completely missed the card name clash, despite frequently playing with Adventures!

Barbarian is basically a weak Knight that you can get for pseudo-free (in the presence of other attacks). It's still not a strong card as it doesn't get you any benefit, but I understand why you wouldn't like it if you don't like Knights!

Fighter is a Cutpurse variant (that doesn't stack). Not super exciting I agree, but at least it can be geared. I'll wait to see what it plays like.

I hadn't noticed the Sorcerer-Transmogrify parallel. I was hoping for an interesting BoM variant, but I think you've got a point. I'll have a think.

Ditto regarding Wizard. Since it's potentially gainable on turn 1 I should make sure it's not OP (or make it harder to call).

Circus is dual type only because there aren't enough action-treasures imo!

Goblin Ambush is duration because I was worried it would be too strong at $4 otherwise.

School of Magic may well be underpriced but remember that it requires an extra action to play compared to King's Court, and gives the payoff the following turn. Still, I'll have to play it to be sure.

Corrupt Noble modifies its own cost not that of other cards! I like that concept, but don't think it really works here since unlike Peddler you won't want too many in your deck. And note that even with 3 buys you can only get one CN for $3, since the next one will cost $4.

Dark Priest, like Tunnel, relies on another discarder. Fortunately Cleric is one such discarder (and a particularly effective one in the absence of curses).

Dominion: Swords & Sorcery (DS&S) is a mini-set that I'm currently designing. Inspired by Asper's excellent cards, the aim is to introduce new mechanics but stay simple. The setting is D&D-style fantasy.

The set is still in its very early days: I've blitzed out a few ideas but not playtested it yet. I'm posting it now to allow early feedback, and to encourage big changes before I get too wedded to any of the ideas. I'm hoping to bully some people into testing it with me soonish.

Adventurer Cards

These are the defining cards in the set (at the moment), a sort of cross between Heirlooms and Reserve cards.

At the start of the game, each player starts with one copy of every Adventurer specified in any of the Kingdom cards or Quests. The cards start on the player's Adventurer's Guild mat, where they remain until they're called. Unlike Reserve cards, calling requires first satisfying some precondition, and the cards don't (currently) have any on-call effects. They get discarded as normal during Clean-up and can be played next time they cycle round. When an Adventurer card gets trashed it gets returned to the Adventurers' Guild rather than placed in the trash pile; the only way to get rid of an Adventurer is to pass it using Masquerade.

Comments: The fact that there's at most one of each Adventurer hopefully gives a bit more leeway in card design. My aim is to make the game reasonably balanced regardless of how many Adventurers are in use: more Adventurers should mainly mean more strategy options. The name Adventurer is quite natural given the setting, but obviously clashes with a removed Base card (admittedly my least favourite one). Other suggestions are welcome. If the mechanic works, I plan to add a few more Adventurers, though many of the obvious card names (Thief, Rogue, Ranger, Druid) are similarly taken.

Kingdom cards

These all introduce an Adventurer, with some attempt at synergy between the card and the Adventurer. Many are probably broken as written.

Missions

Missions are the other way to introduce Adventurers to the game. Whenever you complete an Missions's Quest, place a cube on it and take the specified Reward.

Comments: these are very preliminary proofs-of-concepts. The challenge here will be to make the Adventures fun and not too swingy: an incentive to play a little differently but not a game breaker.

Equipment

A way to mod your Adventurers! There is one of each card, and all of them are brought out whenever any Adventurer cards are in use. They work a bit like Projects: you can buy one for the price specified, place a cube on it, and follow the instructions. There is no limit on how many different equipment items you can buy in a game.

Comments: the challenge here is obviously to make the equipment balanced in games with 1 Adventurer but also in games with all 5.

Individual Cards

Once I've played this a bit I might add some comments here...

[Updates]2019.05.18 Initial upload2019.05.19 Fixed Dark Priest wording and made it a Reaction2019.05.20 Renamed Quest into Adventure and Gear into Equipment; added runners-up for Adventures2019.05.26 Renamed Adventure into Mission and make prize the same for everyone; buff Cleric; reword Dark Priest

Hi Asper: I've just started playing with some of your awesome cards (just the Legacy ones so far) and I have a couple of questions. Sorry if they're already answered elsewhere in this megathread!

Zombie: can this also be a normal supply pile or are Zombies only used in games with Necromancer? [Update: just spotted that Zombie is listed under Extra cards so presumably the latter] How many Zombies are used? And can they be 'returned', or are they pile-less like the Nocturne Zombies?

Loyal Subjects: presumably these are pile-less, like Heirlooms and Shelters?

Assemble: can you choose which order the cards go on the deck, or does the Copper always go first (as it's gained first)?

Also is there some way to tell when you've updated existing cards, e.g. recosting them?

Lucky Penny ($1 Treasure-Reaction)$1-------When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand and either: discard it to instead gain a card costing $1 more; or trash it to instead gain a card costing $2 more.

The $1 cost also makes this particularly self-synergetic in the presence of Cursers.

I am with GendoIkari on this. Woodcutter has been removed but it still sets a benchmark for Woodcutter variants. And Feast has not been removed because it was too weak but because it did not add enough to the game. Changeling is its spiritual successor and much more interesting.

Feast may not have been removed because it was too weak, but it could easily have been. Its last qvist rankings ranked it as the third weakest $4 card, ahead only of thief and scout!

Tax Inspector ($2 Action)+1 Buy+1 CoffersSet this aside. At the start of Clean-up, put it on a Supply pile that doesn't have a Tax Inspector on top.(It must then be gained or bought before any cards below it.)

Raiders ($5 Action-Attack)+ $3Each other player discard down to 3 cards in their hand. You may pay a Coffers. If you do, at the start of Clean-up gain a Gold. Otherwise, return this to the Supply.

The interesting mechanic is obviously Tax Inspector. Covering a pile doesn't just delay buying from it but can also block card effects: e.g. a Curser won't work if the Curse pile is covered. Carefully timed, it could also delay the game end. The +2 Coffers is hopefully a decent enough one-shot effect for the price; the +1 Buy helps in buying any annoyingly placed Tax Inspectors. The split pile stops there being too many Tax Inspectors on the board, and gives an extra incentive to buy them, as does the Raiders' Coffers dependency.

Tax Inspector returns at start of clean-up to allow you to buy cards first; Raiders gains a Gold then to allow you to clear the Gold pile from any Tax Inspectors. Playing a BoM or Overlord as a Tax Inspector can result in those cards at the top of piles, and bypasses the at-most-one-on-top restriction, but given these are expensive I expect that's ok (though it might be fun to put an Overlord on top of the last Province).

I think this rule is incompletely worded, based on what Donald has said. It doesn't mention a card being covered up at all, for one. I think the wording there is just the simplest and most common situation; but the full rule says that a card that is moved or covered up is lost track of; not just a card that isn't where the effect expects it to be.

Shuffling also causes lose-track (including, I believe, shuffling a one card pile).

Hmm, I though that part was obvious? When Summon says "gain a card", that's the first time it refers to it, so obviously that's when it starts tracking it. The only potential clarification that needs to be added is that abilities that say "when you gain/buy/trash/play/etc this" track their own card from the start, and this includes on-play abilities (which have an implicit "when you play this").

The answer to this question highlights that on-play abilities only track their own card if it starts in play (the put this in play is an implicit part of the ability).

I haven't read all the thread, but this question goes back to the BGG thread where lose-track was first introduced. TR + Mining Village, Mining Village can't put itself into play because it expects itself to be in play. An on-play ability always expects the card to be in play. Wasn't this brought up just a few weeks ago?

MV doesn't try to put itself in play (its on-play effect doesn't mention the word play). However you're right that the same principle applies: MV can't trash itself because it's exepcting itself to be in play (though it's perhaps not the best example as even if it didn't lose track of itself it still couldn't trash itself because it's already in the trash).

Band of Misfits "play this as if" instructions expects the Band of Misfits to be in play, because that is the normal place that a card is when you are following its on-play instructions. Band of Misfits is not in play, therefore the "play this as if" instruction can't find it to move it.

Quote

Quote

BoM expects itself in play when it copies something, so it does not attempt to move itself.

I think the answer here is simple... Band of Misfits "play this as if" instructions expects the Band of Misfits to be in play, because that is the normal place that a card is when you are following its on-play instructions. Band of Misfits is not in play, therefore the "play this as if" instruction can't find it to move it.

In which case, should a BOM'd Encampment played from the trash also fail to return itself to the supply (since it similarly expects to find itself in play)?

Wrong according to the wiki "other rules clarifications". This is the whole point of this discussion.

That's not how I read it at all. Band of Misfits doesn't have a separate mechanism to "play itself" that every other Action doesn't have. To me the text is just clarifying that Band of Misfits is played, and then the card it is copying is played. Band of Misfits needs to be played (as a normal action) to start executing the instructions of the card (which instruct the player to play it as another action).

Any ruling about BoM moving itself into play should be no different than eg Woodcutter moving itself into play.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not; but BoM does in fact have a separate instruction that says to play itself. If you play a BoM, you actually play it twice. The first time like normal, just like you play any other action card. Then, you follow its instructions, which causes you to play it again, although this time you are playing it as if it were another card; so it counts as playing the other card, not playing BoM.

Indeed, which is why it counts as 2 actions played as far as Conspirator is concerned.

I'm a little confused about the following wiki ruling: (encountered with Overlord and Treasure Map but the principle is the same)

Quote

If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Embargo), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Embargo, meaning it has left play. Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again (getting token effects again, if there are any), allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate. However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card.

The beginning makes sense: TR plays a BOM, which plays itself as an Embargo, which trashes itself and reverts to being a BOM. TR then plays it again, but can't move it into the play area since it's lost track of it (it was expecting it to already be in the play area). You then get to choose a new card to emulate.

However, the next bit confuses me: since BOM then plays itself again ("You first play Band of Misfits, then you play it again as the card you chose to emulate.") shouldn't it be able to move itself into play? Unlike TR, I can't see why it should have lost track of itself, since it's only just been played (admittedly for the second time this turn) and nothing else has moved it in the interval. Am I missing something about lose track?

4 players game. I had the only 5-2 start. As it was I opened Venture-Engineer, then picked up another Venture and couple of Loans to go for a BM approach (later picking up a Goons as my terminal). I ended up second, but I don't think anyone played this well.

The winner made good use of the Goons-Market Square Watchtower-Basilica synergy, but was otherwise similarly uninspired.

Thanks for all your excellent feedback! I've made a fair few changes in light of your suggestions, and a few more following some very basic testing.

1) Informer: prevented it from stacking, and removed the choices so as to speed it up. Strong early game attack that weakens later on.

Informer ($5 Action-Attack)+1 Card+1 Action+$1You may discard a card from your hand. Each other player with at least 4 cards in their hand reveals a card from their hand costing more than it (or reveals a hand with no such cards), and puts it on top of their deck.

2) Witch doctor: left as is.

3) Artwork: rewritten, since it's just too easy to empty 3 cheap piles, meaning that any scaling $4 cost version ended up being OP against a non-mirror strategy.

Artwork ($4 Victory)At the end of the game, this is worth 1VP for each empty Supply pile.

4) Master Smithy: left as is for now. Early testing suggests it's not as strong as it seems, due to terminal collisions and the discarding of set-aside cards, meaning that when you play it a second time you often get cards you excluded the first time but no longer have in hand so can't exclude again.

5) Patent: left as is.

6) Pension: rewritten to use coffers as suggested.

Pension ($3 Action-Duration)Trash a card from your hand. For every $ it cost, place a coffer on this card. At the start of the next and subsequent turns: take a coffer from the pile. (This card stays in play until there are no coffers left.)

7) Gaulish village: rewritten to be more thematic and harder to stack.

Gaulish village ($1+1P Action)+1 Card+2 Actions-------When you discard this from play, you may first discard from play a Potion or an Attack card. If you do, put this onto your deck.

Counsel: weakened third option as suggested (but left it in so you never regret playing this).

Counsel ($5 Action)+1 ActionReveal all the cards in your hand. The player to your left chooses one. Either: gain a copy of it; trash it, +1 Card; or discard it, +2 Cards.

9) Spring Clean: rephrase from 'discard' to 'put in your discard pile' (like the various deck discarded) so it doesn't trigger on-discard effects.

Spring Clean ($3 Action)+$2Name a card. Look through your deck, and put any number of occurences of the card in your discard pile. Shuffle your deck.

10) Transmogrify: rename to Metamorphosis.

11) Agent: totally rewritten. Was OP as written and encouraged an uninteresting rush. Replacement will almost certainly need tweaking, but I'm hopeful with the concept.

Forged Letter ($5 Treasure-Attack-Reaction-Duration)If this is your turn: +1 Coffer & each other player discards down to 3 cards.Otherwise: at the start of your next turn, +1 Coffer.-------When another player plays an Attack card, you may first pay a Coffer to play this from your hand. While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, you are not affected.

14) Study: totally rewritten. Like Agent, I couldn't get this to work. Expect this'll need tweaking.

Warlock ($5 Action-Attack)You may return a VP token. If you do, each other player gains a Curse. Otherwise, +1VP.You may return a Coffer. If you do, each other player discards down to 3 cards. Otherwise, +1 Coffer.---------When you gain this, +1 VP.

15) Night shift: not sure what the original intent was, so made it sort of attacky (a $2 attack?!).

Night Shift ($2 Action-Duration)Now and at the start of your next turn: +1 Coffer.---------While this is in play, cards cost $1 more for everyone (after any cost reductions).

Can a Gladiator trash a Gladiator that's in the Supply but is covered by a Fortune?

With the official cards this is very unlikely to happen but it is possible: a 2-player game with Ambassador (and possibly Possession) could result in Gladiator and then a Fortune being returned to their pile. With unofficial cards it may be more likely: I thought of this scenario while experimenting with a "return a card to the supply, gain two cards costing less than it" card.

More good points. Thinking about it I agree that Master Smithy is too strong: you need to ignored cards to be in your hand but that should be easy once you've played a couple of them (though remember it is terminal so you need more than just KC and Bridge).